Today, Wednesday, the Supreme Council of Tribes and Libyan Cities expressed its dissatisfaction with the unjust decision issued by the International Criminal Court, which confirms the eligibility of this court in the trial of Dr. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, noting his follow-up and his participation in the appeal case submitted by his legal team.
The Council said, in a statement to its media office, which was viewed by “Og”: “This ruling will make this court a legal legal tool in Libya that will try whoever you want from the Libyans without referring to the Libyan judicial authorities and legislative bodies, and that would not have happened if there had been a national government eager to The lives of its citizens from foreign interference of any kind. ”
He added: “In this regard, the talk is directed to the UN Security Council and to the countries of the European Union and the United States of America who are ranting about democracy and human rights and non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, as well as the League of Arab States concerned with the first military and foreign intervention in Libya.”
He continued: “And we say to the Minister of Justice in the government of accord and those like him who attended this court’s appeal session and demanded that it continue in the trial of the victim outside Libya, without consideration and consideration of the general amnesty law issued by the internationally recognized Libyan parliament and without any Given the Libyan law and justice, where is the dignity of the Libyan people and where is Libyan sovereignty? ”
He continued: “Where are the human rights for which NATO interfered in Libya in February 2011, and where is the democratically elected Libyan parliament that issued the General Amnesty Law ?, and where is the Syndicate of Lawyers and the Libyan Bar Association?”
He continued, “Where is the Libyan Supreme Judicial Council ?, and where are they calling and calling for a civil state?”, And where do they call themselves the Libyan Human Rights Associations.
He concluded: “Where are we Libyans from the national reconciliation that we seek to achieve in order to restore the state, the social fabric and the return of our country, Libya, a free and independent country in which all Libyans are equal, loving brothers who are zealous for the unity of their country and their people.”
Today, Monday, the International Criminal Court ruled that it is entitled to continue the trial of Saif al-Islam Muammar al-Gaddafi because of al-Sarraj’s claims that the General Amnesty Law does not apply to him and that final judgments have not been issued by the Libyan judiciary against him.
The International Criminal announced, a few days ago, that an order to set a date for the ruling will be delivered in the appeal of Dr. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber on Monday 9 March 2020.
And Dr. Saif Al-Islam Al-Gaddafi is being tried on charges that his defense refuted before the Libyan courts and before the International Criminal Court before, and you get a legal amnesty, and Libya is not a member of the court.
The Ministry of Justice of the internationally-backed government of accord backed back steps after a campaign of criticism that it was subjected to by its “shameful” claim, as described by many law experts, the International Criminal Court to try Dr. Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, who received a general amnesty issued by the House of Representatives, which is the legislative body entrusted to .
The shame in the ministry’s retreat is that it violates the visual recording of the hearings that took place inside the International Criminal Court at its headquarters in The Hague, over the past Monday and Tuesday, claiming in a statement, today, Saturday, seen by “Og”, that it never accepts the jurisdiction of any other court to try any A Libyan citizen, whatever his political orientations.
In its statement describing Saif al-Islam as “Mr.” instead of the word “accused,” which the Minister repeated before the court, the Ministry stated that her presence before the International Criminal forced him to comply with Security Council Resolution 1970, adding that she had previously contested international justice in the case of the Director of the Military Intelligence Department Former Libyan Brigadier General Abdullah Al-Senussi, she was able to emerge from this conflict in recognition of the International Criminal Court, the ability of the national judiciary to try Al-Senussi fairly according to international standards.
She claimed that her recent appearance before the International Criminal Court on the 12th and 13th of November this year in The Hague confirms the jurisdiction of the Libyan judiciary with regard to the accusations attributed to Saif al-Islam, and that he has already walked into this trial and that he is able to continue in it, and that the Libyan judiciary has not yet exhausted its jurisdiction over it, claiming that it It is not acceptable for anyone to escape punishment or to try to subdue laws in a way that excludes them from their content, according to the statement.
She also claimed that Saif al-Islam’s defense attempt tried to derive the amnesty law No. 6 of 2015, from its content and cover up its provisions to stop the prosecution of him without meeting the conditions stipulated in the law to grant the amnesty and without waiting for his report from the competent Libyan judicial authorities, which leads to losing the wisdom of its approval It is wasted by the reconciliation efforts that the legislator decided to achieve through the provisions of this law, according to the statement.
The Ministry stated that it could not tolerate what it called “legal fallacies” in violation of the rules of trial in the criminal articles relating to the description of the ruling against Saif al-Islam issued by the Criminal Court of the Tripoli Court of Appeals, which was defensive and was not in his favor.
The Ministry of Justice called on the government of Accord, Saif al-Islam’s defense – if he is serious about his proposition and really believes in the entitlement of his client to a general amnesty – to push this before the national judiciary and prove the availability of conditions for granting amnesty to their client as the only authority competent to apply this law, as he claimed, given that the door Still open.